Open for debate

airmano wrote: ...................

Hi Airmano.

Among the Muslims it is considered very bad practice to make a statement about Islam, or its teachings, without citing one’s sources. This is the way I was educated as a Christian, by the way; and this is how I intend to continue. The only way to avoid citations from yours truly is not to ask yours truly any questions!

I know you’re an atheist (I’ve read enough of your posts). However, when you argue that God is ‘static’ you are acknowledging – albeit only for debating purposes – that He exists. That is why I said (tongue firmly in cheek) that we are agreed on this. Relax.

My reference to your taking just one religious teaching, while ignoring all others, was a caution against ripping a particular doctrine (that of God’s omniscience, in our case) out of its context; and then using it as the sole basis for an argument. ‘Cherry picking’ leaves us vulnerable to accusations of intellectual laziness or dishonesty. Who knows, in extreme circumstances, a fella might be accused of living under a bridge in Norway.

Avoiding such behaviour is extremely important if we desire to be taken seriously.   

Yes, I do agree that God must ‘always have known that He would create the Universe in due course.’

I disagree with your claim that since God is omniscient He cannot change His mind (and is therefore ‘static’). As far as I’m concerned, being omniscient means He doesn’t need to change His mind. This is quite a different matter.

I don’t agree that God was in any way inhibited from implementing His plan of creation. Nor do I accept that moving from the planning stage (if I may call it that) to the implementation stage involved a ‘change in his state of mind’.

Deciding NOT to create the universe - after having decided to do just that - would have involved a change of mind.

You refer to ‘rules which allowed the Universe to come into existence’; and state that these might have ‘always coexisted with God.’

I opine that the so-called ‘rules of nature’ did not allow (or cause) the Universe to come into existence; rather, they are contingent upon its existence. In short, without nature there can be no ‘rules’ of nature. If we accept that nature is not eternal then we must accept that these rules are not eternal.

You claim that God – by executing His ‘immutable eternal plan’ – has reduced Himself to the ‘level of a robot.’

How so?

Finally, you write: ‘I jump the Quran surahs because as far as I can see they do not bring any additional insight.’ You wish to know my thoughts about this.

Muhammad Ali once said: ‘The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.’

I insist you read every single word of mine (and every quote). This may not make you any wiser; but it will make you better informed!

Seriously, we should develop the habit of reading as often as we are able; covering as many topics as we are able – no matter how hard it might be to read stuff that stands in direct conflict with our most cherished opinions. Selecting only what agrees with us – or what is easier for us to cope with – is another form of intellectual laziness. It prevents us from growing.

airmano wrote: ........

Hello again.

Yes, we can concentrate on the core; and discuss other points in due course, God willing.

You seem fixated on the notion that putting a decision into effect equates to a change of mind.

I have a sentence in mind (‘The cat sat on the mat’) that I now intend to write. Here goes: ‘The cat sat on the mat.’
    
By definition, a change of mind is a decision to reverse an earlier decision. Had I decided not to write my sentence after all; or to write, instead of that sentence, the words 'On the mat the cat sat’ I would have satisfied this definition.

When it comes to God you insist that the expression ‘a change of mind’ be re-defined as: ‘Putting a decision into effect’. What is your justification for this?

Your notion that God is a robot can wait!

Very best regards.

Paul

airmano wrote: ..............

Hello again airmano.

Mmm..…I fear we are in danger of dancing in circles. However….

I conclude my previous post with a question:

‘By definition, a change of mind is a decision to reverse an earlier decision…. When it comes to God you insist that the expression ‘a change of mind’ be re-defined as: ‘Putting a decision into effect’. What is your justification for this?’

In reply you write that: ‘(An) omniscient being would have…known (forever) that it "would change its mind" and what the new state of mind would be. But does it make sense to use the term "changing mind" when you already know beforehand what you "will think" later?’

I fail to see how this answers my question. Please help me out. Which of these, in your opinion, is the correct definition of a ‘change of mind’ when applied to God:

a) ‘A decision to reverse an earlier decision’; or

b) ‘Putting a decision into effect’

Thank you.

The remainder of your post will be addressed once you’ve responded to my request. I don’t need more than a simple ‘a’ or ‘b’; but feel free to elaborate, if you wish.

Very best regards.

Paul

DavidC wrote: God does whatever he wills. Truly, it is that simple.

God wills only that which is intrinsically possible.